Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV24383, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24383    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint: 7/13/24

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿ 

Department 27¿ 

Tentative Ruling 

Hearing Date:           3/6/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿ 

Case No./Name.:      22STCV24383 VANESSA MUNOZ vs JAVIER MERAZ, et al.

Motion Name:           MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Moving Party:           Defendants

Responding Party:    Plaintiff Daniel Munoz

Notice:                      Sufficient¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Ruling: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT IS DENIED

Background

This case involves a car accident filed on July 28, 2022, where plaintiffs Vanessa Munoz, Guillermina Vazquez Munoz, and minors Daniel Munoz and Damian Munoz, represented by their Guardian Ad Litem Vanessa Munoz, filed against Defendants Javier Meraz, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. On June 9, 2023, a Settlement Agreement was executed between Defendants and Plaintiff Daniel Munoz, a minor, through his Guardian ad Litem Vanessa Munoz, as detailed in Exhibit A of the Declaration of Todd G. Lezon ("Lezon Decl.") ¶ 2. Despite having a fully executed settlement agreement, Plaintiff's counsel has not filed the required minors' compromise as stipulated in the AGREEMENT. Consequently, Defendant now moves the court to enforce the settlement and requests the Court to order Plaintiff's counsel to file the necessary minors' compromise on behalf of Plaintiff.

Motion to Enforce Settlement

CCP § 664.6 states: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.” 

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  To enforce a written settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6, the following three elements must be met: (1) the parties must have come to a meeting of the minds on all material points; (2) there must be a writing that contains the material terms of the agreement; and (3) the writing must be signed by the parties.  (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797-98.) 

CCP § 664.6 “require[s] the signatures of the parties seeking to enforce the agreement under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 664.6 and against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”  (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974, 985.)  CCP § 664.6’s “requirement of a ‘writing signed by the parties’ must be read to apply to all parties bringing the section 664.6 motion and against whom the motion is directed.”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 306; see Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Const., Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 35-37 [“A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.”].)  “A procedure in which a settlement is evidenced by one writing signed by both sides minimizes the possibility of … dispute[s] and legitimizes the summary nature of the section 664.6 procedure.”  (Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1293.)   

Analysis and Conclusion

The Court examined the settlement agreement in question. It is signed only by Plaintiff. Defendants’ signatures are missing. “A written settlement agreement is not enforceable under section 664.6 unless it is signed by all of the parties to the agreement, not merely the parties against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced.” (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37 (Sully-Miller).) Thus, the present motion is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:     

·                If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.       

·                Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.       

·                If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.